What do you think, should there be a death penalty?
Perssonalni I am against it,because of these things:
1.Death penalty vs liftime jail (well death penalty is kind of reward in this case)
2. How are we bether then him/her? Where is ours moral?
3. We must think about moral of executor.
freedom of movement, yes they get their daily amount of movement.
That is not what it means at all.
The right to work, they can work. it even gets promoted too them...
(see above)
are you unable too read that in context?
You made a universal claim, which means that it should apply regardless of context. To then make arbitrary exceptions is special pleading.
or do you believe that the world is stupid except for you?
You make a compelling argument, but no.
again you nit picker... just take the point being made.
That point is irrelevant and completely off topic. It's a strawman meant to divert the argument from the validity of capital punishment to the permissible extent of government authority.
+ It may seem to work as a deterrent like many people have said but it actually doesn't. Many statistics show that the crime rates of countries which banned and brought back the death penalty after some years did not match the times of those changes in law enforcement. In other words, the crime rates did not rise or drop accordingly with the death penalty.
+ In the end, it is the ethical thing to do
- Of course, it is doubtful how reasonably can a vicious criminal think.
+ But if we assume that he/she is in a position to be rational, what matters to a vicious criminal in the end is the chance he will get caught, not the severity of the punishment.
-However, as a human being, I understand that there are crimes whose nature is so twisted and severe, that the punishment cannot be anything else like for example child molesting, as I'm sure many parents would agree.
Final answer: While there is the emotional violence the victims and their relatives are subjected to (which can only naturally leave them asking for revenge), I believe that both ethically and practically it is not an option.
I'm for the death penalty as long as it's cost- efficient. The current system, where inmates sit on death row forever, is not efficient. It's a waste of taxpayer money.
The death penalty should only be reserved for only seriously heinous crimes, like intentionally murdering someone (meaning with pre-meditation and all that fancy jazz.) I'm really of the thinking that the punishment should fit the crime, so for example, if you rape someone, you lose your junk. If you murder someone intentionally, you get sent to immediate death. If the killing was accidental, like, say, if I were to hit and kill someone on a bike with my car, because they didn't obey traffic laws, the sentence should be more lenient, if any.
On a moral and ethical standpoint, you get what you deserve. Crimes where they directly affect someone's health and well being are especially heinous, because you are denying someone their core values. In America, we have three values that all people have the right to achieve without interference by another so long as they're not harming someone else. Those values are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Once you interfere with one of those values, you lose yours.
Easiest way for the death penalty.. a gun with one bullet.
all due respect @thepyro222 but this sounds like middle ages era justice to me.
The death penalty should only be reserved for only seriously heinous crimes, like intentionally murdering someone (meaning with pre-meditation and all that fancy jazz.)
You see there is a minor thing that is called miscarriage of justice. Do you understand the weight a death penalty carries? What if the accused is innocent but loses the trial due to bad defense? What if the judge is corrupt?
I'm really of the thinking that the punishment should fit the crime, so for example, if you rape someone, you lose your junk. If you murder someone intentionally, you get sent to immediate death. If the killing was accidental, like, say, if I were to hit and kill someone on a bike with my car, because they didn't obey traffic laws, the sentence should be more lenient, if any.
Again, miscarriage of justice. Also, you immediately and painfully punish criminals in a cruel way! If you rape someone you get your genitals cut off? That was done before the rise of the roman empire! I am sorry for my temper and my sarcasm but really, this way, you also block the possibility of someone regretting their mistake!
On a moral and ethical standpoint, you get what you deserve.
You do not! Who said you do?
Those values are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Once you interfere with one of those values, you lose yours.
Oh, so if someone is bullying me in high school he is stopping my pursuit of happpiness so he deserves never to be happy again. Is that right?
Easiest way for the death penalty.. a gun with one bullet.
Yes, I'm actually arguing this in a research paper for my English Class. Some of these stories are just straight up cruel.
The Romans(yes the Romans, quite civilized people actually) said something along the lines that life needs to be respected and those that disrespect this gift of life should not be in this world.
Plus, with prison for life....these people who have killed, would not hesitate to do so again. This is meaning that they wouldn't be afraid to take a security guard or another prisoner along with them before they themselves die, from old age or whatever.
But, theres a reason this topic was a choice on which arguement I could choose for my paper, it causes a lot of arguements.
The Romans(yes the Romans, quite civilized people actually) said something along the lines that life needs to be respected and those that disrespect this gift of life should not be in this world.
Like when they crucified six thousand surviving followers of Spartacus along the road to Capua?
Like when they crucified six thousand surviving followers of Spartacus along the road to Capua?
Hence me saying that it's an arguable point. This whole topic will be argued for a long time without a 'solution' so to speak. Good point though, never knew about that.
Castration for those who raped, torture for those who tortured.
If someone set fire to a house, killing people, he or she should be burned to death.
You would be no better than them, and make yourself guilty of the same crimes you accuse them of. The legal system would lose its credibility, arbitrariness would take over. And let's not even talk about the infringements against the human rights.
The only exception is chemical castration for repetitive sexual offenders, as part of a therapeutical treatment. I believe this sentence is already used in some cases.
The only cases I can think of that may deserve the death penalty are the most twisted crimes (zoophilia, pedophilia, child murder etc.) And even in those cases, the point is not to make them suffer as much as possible. The point is to kill them because their sickness has no cure. In a sense, such people don't deserve to live.
why should this be punished by death?
(i dont say it's oke to do. i just wonder why. it seems a bit to harsh for me. especialy in the case of bestiality/zoophilia)
for child murder go's kinda the same. what is the difference between murder and child murder? and are these murders done in the heat of a moment or are they planned. and if they are planned, how well and how long have they been planned.. that is what makes it worse for me, not just the age of a victim.
Pedophilia and bestiality are not deserving of the death penalty for a few reasons. The punishment would not be in proportion to the crime. Since the victim is still alive, and can presumably continue living, it does not make sense to take the life of another in retribution. The only case where the punishment would be proportional is if the victim died at the hands of the perpetrator (and the victim is human, excluding bestiality). Additionally, the legal system (at least in the US) does not allow for it. The death penalty for non-homicide offenses was abolished nationwide by the Supreme Court in Kennedy v. Louisiana.
As for child murder, I would agree with partydevil in asking what is the difference between child murder and adult murder? Are we weighing the value of lives now? Is it for us to decide that this person's life was worth more in the eyes of the law? I would contend that we need to weigh lives equally, and regard each taking of a life as just as tragic as the next.
But this exposes a weakness in the death penalty as a punishment. It inherently values one person's life more than another. It says to the criminal "hey, you killed someone, so it is okay for us to kill someone". It asserts that the judicial system has the right to weigh lives and to decide who lives and who dies. In short, it is the judicial system playing God.
I oppose the death penalty in all but the most egregious cases. Terrorism, war crimes, serial killers and the like. If this person clearly cannot live without people dying, or if it is absolutely necessary for the security of the nation that he/she must die, then the death penalty is justified for me.
Oh, and treason. Because while it may not act as a strong deterrent for most crimes (and there is significant evidence to show that it does not effectively deter crime), I feel that treason is something that could be deterred. Especially if the execution was public.
